Sinking boat moral dilemma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by Modus.Ponens »

BlackBird wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:From the 1st precept view point there's no breaking it if you decide to escape death. You didn't cause their deaths. You simply abstained from helping them. Most of these moral dilemas (I enjoy them, don't get me wrong) have the same flaw: they equate lack of action in one direction with action in the opposite direction.

So yeah, I think I would leave.
I don't read that into it, I read that if you leave you have to deal with the potential guilt of knowing that you may have been able to save the lives of 9 others by remaining aboard, not that you're actually a killer.
If that was the case it wouldn't be a dilema, since we face that decision every day by, for example, not saving money to feed people in Africa or give them medical treatment. Every book, CD, DVD, gas money, car, etc. Could save people's lives. We don't do that every day. So it's only a dilema if you believe in the equality between not acting in one direction and acting in the opposite direction.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by BlackBird »

Modus.Ponens wrote:
BlackBird wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:From the 1st precept view point there's no breaking it if you decide to escape death. You didn't cause their deaths. You simply abstained from helping them. Most of these moral dilemas (I enjoy them, don't get me wrong) have the same flaw: they equate lack of action in one direction with action in the opposite direction.

So yeah, I think I would leave.
I don't read that into it, I read that if you leave you have to deal with the potential guilt of knowing that you may have been able to save the lives of 9 others by remaining aboard, not that you're actually a killer.
If that was the case it wouldn't be a dilema, since we face that decision every day by, for example, not saving money to feed people in Africa or give them medical treatment. Every book, CD, DVD, gas money, car, etc. Could save people's lives. We don't do that every day. So it's only a dilema if you believe in the equality between not acting in one direction and acting in the opposite direction.
Respectfully, I completely disagree. :)
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
James the Giant
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by James the Giant »

I'd like to think I would stay and help bail.
Risking or giving up my life to help people survive... that's a good use of a life I reckon.
The Titanic survivors only had to wait around 2 hours before the Carpathia arrived, so I'm banking on a nearby ship and good karma for a favourable rebirth.
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by alan »

An effective mental exercise on moral issues must create a dilemma. You've left too many holes in the story--it is way too easy to find another way out of the situation. Nice try, though.
User avatar
James the Giant
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by James the Giant »

It is interesting how many people are unwilling to engage with the scenario, and instead weasel out by finding loopholes and gaps to avoid having to make the choice.
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by alan »

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A dilemma is a choice between two bad outcomes. There must be no other options available.
Constructing a useful moral dilemma is difficult in the abstract and may never be worthwhile in a real world situation.
Unless perhaps you are teaching a group of teenagers who have never thought about this before.
User avatar
James the Giant
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by James the Giant »

alan wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A dilemma is a choice between two bad outcomes. There must be no other options available.
Constructing a useful moral dilemma is difficult in the abstract and may never be worthwhile in a real world situation.
Unless perhaps you are teaching a group of teenagers who have never thought about this before.
So, out with it then; which?
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by alan »

Which what, Big James?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by binocular »

alan wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A dilemma is a choice between two bad outcomes. There must be no other options available.
Constructing a useful moral dilemma is difficult in the abstract and may never be worthwhile in a real world situation.
Unless perhaps you are teaching a group of teenagers who have never thought about this before.
Agreed.

It seems that pondering such "moral dilemmas" and trying to decide in them somehow can satisfy the human desire for drama, and the desire to appear morally superior, to maintain the image of a morally superior person.

:embarassed:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by BlackBird »

It surprises me the amount of people who want to pick holes in, or criticise an abstract idea that I posted for a bit of fun, as a thought exercise. There's really no need for it. There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation. I don't think it says anything about a person one way or another. Sure it's not the best one out there and there's a lot of things that need to be set a side. But why do you care so much? If it's not your thing, then don't post. Sorry I haven't satisfied all your requisite perfections for a moral dilemma :tongue:

Binocular, I'll reiterate what I said above, it's just a bit of fun. There's no desire to satisfy a need for drama or moral superiority in me, nor in anybody else that I can see in this thread.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by SarathW »

This question was put to the test on a management training programme.
People came up with different reasons for their decision. Outcome was that there is no right or wrong answer.
You can do whatever fits you for the situation.

However there is a Buddha’s story that he swan with his mother for her rescue, though his life was at risk. Perhaps I would do the same.

Problem is I can’t swim!
SOS
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by zavk »

BlackBird wrote:There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation.
Hi all

I'd say that such a thought exercise can be valuable, in that it may be a way for us to cultivate greater sensitivity towards the limits of our capacity to know, greater hospitality to the 'outside' of thought. And I would say that it is pertinent to the real world - not in the sense that it has any immediate calculable application, but in the more general sense of how it touches on a some aspects of our day-to-day relations that cannot be easily compartmentalised or contained with 'objective' knowledge.

There's a distinctive element that characterises the initial scenario and all the responses that have been posted: the element of the unkown or unknowningness. The scenario turns on the unknowingness of whether the group would survive or not if they had stayed together, whether the person who decides to go with his/her friend would be betraying the trust of the group or honouring one's friendship, etc. It could go both ways - the outcome remains unknown, or at any rate, unknowable in advance.

Regardless of the reasons one gives and the decision one makes, the element of unknowingness is not eliminated as such - it remains, despite our rationalisation and calculation. To be sure, the reasons we come up with may be sound reasons, but when the decision is made to act a certain way, the unknowingness of what one's decision would lead to remains an open question. Our knowledge of the situation up till that point, our knowledge of why we choose to act a certain way, only takes us that far - at the point where the decision is made, our capacity to objectively know reaches its limit, thought stands exposed to its outside.

What is it, then, that carries forth our decision? Could it be this thing called faith? Or if you prefer, trust, anticipatory confidence, fidelity - in any case, what is generally expressed by the notions of 'doing something in good faith', or saying 'Yours Faithfully'. What makes such scenarios difficult is because of our bonds of relationality to those involved: a good friend, a family member, loved ones, those to whom we have made a promise. The promise could be explicit such as when the person agrees to be part of the group; but the promise need not be articulated for it to be a promise, such as when we feel an unspoken responsibility those dear to us. In any case, aren't we making promises all the time when we say to our family, friends, and loved ones: "I love you', 'I'll see you around', 'I do'. When we say these things, we are effectively saying without articulating it: 'trust me, I will honour fidelity to our relationship.'

The relation between faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity and knowledge is a reciprocal one. We reflect on the reasons why we ought to act a certain way, then we make the decision. But from that point it is no longer the duty of knowledge but the duty of faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity to hold us true to our decision - which, btw, could very well generate consequences against our wishes. Things could always go pear shape. There is no guarantee that our decision would not meet its own ruin, that our faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity would not be violated by its own chance. Our decision must expose itself to chance for it to be a decision in the first place.

So there is a certain double bind here. But I'd say that it is precisely because of this double bind - the lack of guarantee that our decision would not become that which burdens us - it is because of this im-possibility of guarantee, of objectively knowing in advance - that we have the ongoing movement of responsibility. Why exert constant effort to reflect on our decisions, to readjust them, to retake them, over and over again, if the decision is not exposed to what is beyond its capacity to know or settle once and for all? I believe the general thrust of what I'm suggesting is expressed by this passage in Tilt's signature:

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

:anjali:
With metta,
zavk
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by binocular »

BlackBird wrote:It surprises me the amount of people who want to pick holes in, or criticise an abstract idea that I posted for a bit of fun, as a thought exercise. There's really no need for it. There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation. I don't think it says anything about a person one way or another. Sure it's not the best one out there and there's a lot of things that need to be set a side. But why do you care so much? If it's not your thing, then don't post. Sorry I haven't satisfied all your requisite perfections for a moral dilemma :tongue:

Binocular, I'll reiterate what I said above, it's just a bit of fun. There's no desire to satisfy a need for drama or moral superiority in me, nor in anybody else that I can see in this thread.
Great! :guns:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by Reductor »

I'd stay, even if I really wanted to get home to my kids. And if they were grown up and no longer needed me, I'd stay without hesitation, since these other people would already be terrified by approaching death, and to leave them would be to compound that fear while increasing the odds of its realization.

Not that I'd be totally at ease with dying, myself, but that's my problem to come to grips with; but I don't trust other people to come to grips with their own mortality, and would seek to spare them that as much as possible.
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Sinking boat moral dilemma

Post by BlackBird »

Hi Ed

Thanks for your post which was as always a thought provoking read.

I think you've got to the heart of the matter when you point out that unknowingness is a crucial element of this.

My thinking on the matter goes like so:
Image

Only one of the four outcomes for me would be ideal, one is life for all and no moral repercussions, one represents death, the other represents guilt, and the final one represents shame. The decision would seem to be easy, but it's not.

Say you stay, and help does not arrive, as the boat is going under and you're about to die you wonder why you didn't take the chance to jump ship, at least then one life could have been saved - If the other life raft was here now, you'd take it, and probably not experience guilt for doing so, at least not as much than if you had braved the uncertainty of jumping at the start of things. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

Say you jump, and the help does not arrive, but because you shortened their remaining time, how can you know it would not have arrived in time to rescue them if you had stayed? Do you not share a degree of responsibility for consigning them to sink 3 hours earlier to save your own hide, when they might otherwise have lived?

Say you jump, and they do get saved anyway. They all send you abusive emails and letters berating you for your cowardice, how could you have left them at their moment of need? They got lucky to be rescued they say, and you could have killed them. You ask yourself what the point was in jumping ship - If only you had stayed on board you wouldn't have to go through the abuse. But again, hindsight is 20/20.

Finally, say you stay, and help does arrive in time. Everyone lives, and your friend from the other life boat asks you: Why the hell did you take the risk? How do you justify that? By saying you would rather have risked death than live in a world carrying the guilt of others lost lives, or the shame of being abused for your supposed cowardice and selfishness.

The fact is, when you make the decision you don't know what's going to happen. Even once you have made the decision there is still uncertainty over what the outcome will be.
zavk wrote:
BlackBird wrote:There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation.
What is it, then, that carries forth our decision? Could it be this thing called faith? Or if you prefer, trust, anticipatory confidence, fidelity - in any case, what is generally expressed by the notions of 'doing something in good faith', or saying 'Yours Faithfully'. What makes such scenarios difficult is because of our bonds of relationality to those involved: a good friend, a family member, loved ones, those to whom we have made a promise. The promise could be explicit such as when the person agrees to be part of the group; but the promise need not be articulated for it to be a promise, such as when we feel an unspoken responsibility those dear to us. In any case, aren't we making promises all the time when we say to our family, friends, and loved ones: "I love you', 'I'll see you around', 'I do'. When we say these things, we are effectively saying without articulating it: 'trust me, I will honour fidelity to our relationship.'

It's interesting that you make this point because the thought occurred to me at one stage to add a kicker to the game that would identify the people in your life boat as work colleagues or friends, as opposed to strangers. I think that would definitely modify the results. On the flipside, if they're all strangers and your wife and kids, mother and father are all at home eagerly awaiting your arrival from your trip on a ship, do you put your life on the line despite them?
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Post Reply